Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	apostle_n	sin_n	speak_v	5,697	5	5.3444	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62611	A sermon preached before the Queen at White-Hall, April the 9th, 1693, concerning the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ by John, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1248; ESTC R9501	16,874	41

so plainly that the force of them is not to be avoided without the most shameful wresting and perverting of them This is my commandment says our Saviour that ye love one another as I have loved you How is that he declares in the next words Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend that is that he be contented to die in his stead And to the same purpose St. Paul For when ye were yet Sinners in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly Now the question is whether by this expression of Christ's dying for the ungodly be meant only his dying for the benefit and advantage of Sinners but not his dying in their stead This let the words which immediately follow determine For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye yet peradventure for a good man one would even dare to dye But God commendeth his love to us in that whilst we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us And now I appeal to any man of good sense whether it be not plain that the Apostle here speaks of Christ's dying for Sinners in the same sense as one man is said to dye for another that is to save another from death which what is it else but to dye in his stead He that can deny this is perverse to the highest degree and I fear almost beyond the possibility of being convinced And the Argument from these two Texts is so much the stronger because we do not here reason merely from the phrase and expression but from the main Scope of our Saviour's discourse in the one and of St. Paul's in the other For the design of both is to recommend the superlative love of Christ to us above the greatest love that ever any man express'd to another The highest pitch that human affection did ever rise to was for a man to lay down his life for his Friend but the Son of God laid down his life for his Enemies Scarcely says St. Paul would one lay down his life for a righteous man that is for one who is but strictly just and honest and does no body wrong but for a good man that is for-one that is kind and beneficial to all and hath obliged Mankind by great Benefits some one may be found that would lay down his life to save the life of such a Person But the love of Christ hath gone far beyond this He dyed for Sinners for those who were neither good men nor righteous But God commendeth his love to us in that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us Now where doth the force of this Argument lye if not in this that Christ hath done that for us who were Enemies and Sinners which some very few persons in the World have done for their Friend or for some very eminently good man And what is that Why they have laid down their lives in their stead And so Christ hath done for us This seems to be so very plain that I do not see how the force of this Argument is possible to be avoided It is evident then from Scripture that Christ dyed not only for our advantage but in our stead as truly and really as any man ever did or can dye for another who lays down his own life to save another from death For if Christ had not dyed we had perished everlastingly and because he dyed we are saved from eternal Death and misery And though this be no where in Scripture spoken of by the name or term of Satisfaction yet it is said to be the price of our Redemption which surely is the same thing in effect with Satisfaction For as we are Sinners we are liable and as I may say indebted to the Justice of God And the Son of God by his Death and Sufferings in our Nature hath discharged this obligation and paid this debt for us Which discharge since it was obtained for us by the shedding of Christ's Blood and the Scripture tells us that without shedding of blood there is no remission of Sins And since God is graciously pleased to accept of it for the Debt which we owed to his Justice and to declare himself fully pleased and contented with it why it may not properly enough be called payment or satisfaction I confess I am not able to understand Men may eternally wrangle about any thing but what a frivolous contention what a trifling in serious matters what barretrie in Divinity is this Not that God was angry with his Son when he thus laid on him the iniquities of us all No he was always well pleased with him and never better than when he became obedient to the Death even the Death of the Cross and bore our Sins in his own body on the Tree Nor yet that our Saviour suffered the very same that the Sinner should have suffered namely the proper Pains and Torment of the Damned But that his Obedience and Sufferings were of that value and esteem with God and his voluntary Sacrifice of himself so well-pleasing to him that he thereupon entred into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind wherein he hath engaged himself to forgive the Sins of those who believe and repent and to make them partakers of eternal life And hence the Blood of Christ which was shed for us upon the Cross is called the Blood of the Covenant as being the Sanction of that New Covenant into which God is entred with Mankind And not only the Sanction and confirmation of that Covenant but the very Foundation of it For which reason the Cup in the Lord's Supper is called the New Testament or as the word should rather be rendred the New Covenant in his Blood which was shed for many for the remission of Sins I proceed now to the II d. Thing propounded which was to shew that the Expiation of our Sins was made by the Sufferings of Christ from the nature and intention of Expiatory Sacrifices both among the Jews and Heathen to which the Death of Christ is in the New Testament so frequently compared and in point of vertue and efficacy to take away Sin infinitely preferr'd to it Now the nature and design of Expiatory Sacrifices was plainly this To substitute one Living Creature to suffer and die instead of another so that what the Sinner deserved to have suffered was supposed to be done to the Sacrifice that is it was slain to make an atonement for the Sinner And though there was no reason to hope for any such effect from the Blood of Bulls or of Goats or of any other Living Creatures that were wont to be offered up in Sacrifice yet that both Jews and Heathen did expect and hope for it is so very evident that it cannot without extreme Ignorance or Obstinacy be deny'd But this expectation how unreasonable soever plainly shews it to have been the common Apprehension of Mankind in all Ages that God would not be appeased nor should Sin be pardoned

without Suffering But yet so that men generally conceived good hopes that upon the Repentance of Sinners God would accept of a vicarious punishment that is of the Suffering of some other in their stead And very probably as I said before in complyance with this Apprehension of Mankind and in condescension to it as well as for other weighty Reasons best known to the Divine Wisdom God was pleased to find out such a Sacrifice as should really and effectually procure for them that great Blessing of the Forgiveness of Sins which they had so long hoped for from the multitude of their own Sacrifices And the Apostle to the Hebrews doth in a large Discourse shew the great vertue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ to the purpose of Remission of Sins above that of the Sacrifices under the Law And that the Death of Christ is really and effectually to our advantage all that which the Sacrifices under the Law were supposed to be to the Sinner But now once saith the Apostle here in the Text in the end of the World hath he appeared to take away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself This is the great vertue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ that what ever was expected from any other Sacrifices either by Jews or Heathens was really effected by this This was plainly signified by the Jewish Passover wherein the Lamb was slain and the Sinner did escape and was pass'd by In allusion whereto St. Paul makes no scruple to call Christ our Passover or Paschal Lamb who was slain that we might escape Christ our Passover says he is slain or offer'd for us that is He by the gracious appointment of God was substituted to suffer all that in our stead which the Paschal Lamb was supposed to suffer for the Sinner And this was likewise signified by the Sinners laying his hand upon the Sacrifice that was to be slain thereby as it were transferring the punishment which was due to himself upon the Sacrifice that was to be slain and offered up For so God tells Moses that the Sinner who came to offer an Expiatory Sacrifice should do He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering and it shall be accepted for him to make an Atonement for him And the Apostle tells us that it was an established Principle in the Jewish Religion that without shedding of blood there was no remission of Sins Which plainly shews that they expected this Benefit of the Remission of Sins from the Blood of their Sacrifices And then he tells us that we are really made partakers of this Benefit by the Blood of Christ and by the vertue of his Sacrifice And again Christ says he was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many plainly alluding to the Sacrifices under the Law which did as it were bear the faults of the Sinner And that this expression of Christ's being offer'd to bear our Sins cannot be meant of his taking away our Sins by his holy Doctrine which was confirmed by his Death but of his bearing our Sins by way of imputation and by his suffering for them in our stead as the Sacrifice was supposed to do for the Sinner This I say is evident beyond all denial from the opposition which follows after the Text between his first Appearance and his second Christ says our Apostle was once offered to bear our Sins but unto them that look for him he shall appear a second time without Sin unto Salvation Why Did he not appear the first time without Sin Yes certainly as to any inherent guilt for the Scripture tells us he had no Sin What then is the meaning of the opposition That at his first Coming he bore our Sins but at his second Coming he shall appear without Sin unto Salvation These words can have no other imaginable sense but this that at his first Coming he sustained the Person of a Sinner and suffered instead of us but his second Coming shall be upon another account and he shall appear without Sin unto Salvation that is not as a Sacrifice but as a Judge to conferr the Reward of Eternal Life upon those who are partakers of the benefit of that Sacrifice which he offered to God for us in the dayes of his Flesh I proceed to the III. III d. Thing I proposed and which yet remains to be spoken to namely to vindicate this Method and Dispensation of the Divine Wisdom from the Objections which are brought against it and to shew that there is nothing in it that is unreasonable or any wise unworthy of God I shall mention four Objections which are commonly urged in this matter and I think they are all that are considerable First That this Method of the Expiation of Sin by the Sufferings of Christ seems to argue some defect and want of Goodness in God as if he needed some external Motive and were not of himself disposed to forgive Sinners To which I think the Answer is not difficult namely that God did not want Goodness to have forgiven Sin freely and without any Satisfaction but his Wisdom did not think it meet to give encouragement to Sin by too easy a forgiveness and without some remarkable testimony of his severe displeasure against it And therefore his greater Goodness and Compassion to Mankind devised this way to save the Sinner without giving the least countenance and encouragement to Sin For God to think of saving us any way was excessive Goodness and Mercy but to think of doing it in this way by substituting his dearly beloved Son to suffer in our stead is a Condescension so very amazing that if God had not been pleased of his own Goodness to stoop to it it had almost been Blasphemy in Man to have thought of it or desired it Secondly How can our Sins be said to have been forgiven freely if the Pardon of them was purchased at so dear a rate and so mighty a Price was paid for it In Answer to this I desire these two things may be considered 1 st That it is a wonderfull grace and favour of God to admit of this translation of the Punishment which was due to us and to accept of the Sufferings of another in our stead and for our benefit when he might justly have exacted it of us in our own Persons So that even in this respect we are as St. Paul says justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ And freely too in respect of any necessity that lay upon God to forgive us in this or any other way It was a free act of his Goodness to save us even by the Satisfaction and Sufferings of his own Son 2 ly It was in effect freely too notwithstanding the mighty Price which was paid for our Redemption Because this Price was not of our own procuring but of God's providing He found out this Ransom for us And will any man say that a Prince who prevails with his